> -Original Message-
> From: Sam James
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 6:30 AM
> To: Jiang, Haochen
> Cc: gcc-regress...@gcc.gnu.org; gcc-testresu...@gcc.gnu.org;
> gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: gcc-regression script build fail info
>
> "Jiang, Haoche
ng, Haochen
>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 3:57 PM
>> To: 'Sam James'
>> Cc: 'gcc-regress...@gcc.gnu.org' ; 'gcc-
>> testresu...@gcc.gnu.org' ; 'gcc@gcc.gnu.org'
>>
>> Subject: RE: gcc-regression script build fail info
>
July 18, 2024 3:57 PM
> To: 'Sam James'
> Cc: 'gcc-regress...@gcc.gnu.org' ; 'gcc-
> testresu...@gcc.gnu.org' ; 'gcc@gcc.gnu.org'
>
> Subject: RE: gcc-regression script build fail info
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
&
> -Original Message-
> From: Jiang, Haochen
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 3:46 PM
> To: 'Sam James'
> Cc: 'gcc-regress...@gcc.gnu.org' ; 'gcc-
> testresu...@gcc.gnu.org' ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: gcc-regression script build
acktrace if
> > it's not going to fit in the last N lines from make.
>
> Hi Sam,
>
> Let me change that in the script and see if it is much clearer.
>
> This bug report definitely seems not clear for me also.
Hi all,
Sam just mentioned in another thread that the c
>> Does the group / team have an AIX 6.1 build machine to build the trunk on?
>> Or am I the first to person walk into this?
>
> I'm still curious in the question above
And I'm still curious :-)
I opened this bug report:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55105
I finally got trunk to
On 28 October 2012 13:39, Perry Smith wrote:
> I opened this bug report: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/post_bug.cgi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55105
>> Does the group / team have an AIX 6.1 build machine to build the trunk on?
>> Or am I the first to person walk into this?
>
> I'm still curious in the question above
And I'm still curious :-)
I opened this bug report: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/post_bug.cgi
I finally got trunk to build.
On Oct 25, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 11:31 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>> On 25 October 2012 14:16, Perry Smith wrote:
>>> For trunk, yes, see the top entry of http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/c
On Oct 25, 2012, at 11:31 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 25 October 2012 14:16, Perry Smith wrote:
>>>
>> For trunk, yes, see the top entry of http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/changes.html
>>
>> That isn't the case for 4.5.2, so as I sai
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25 October 2012 14:16, Perry Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 October 2012 02:12, Perry Smith wrote:
This also changes a previous statement I made: while I did build 4.5.2 on
On 25 October 2012 14:16, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> On 25 October 2012 02:12, Perry Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> This also changes a previous statement I made: while I did build 4.5.2 on a
>>> different level of AIX, it was a 6.1 level and has the same
On Oct 25, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25 October 2012 02:12, Perry Smith wrote:
>>
>> This also changes a previous statement I made: while I did build 4.5.2 on a
>> different level of AIX, it was a 6.1 level and has the same LD_LIBRARY_PATH
>> feature. Thus, something has c
On Oct 24, 2012, at 8:12 PM, Perry Smith wrote:
> Just to satisfy my curiosity, I will build 4.5.2 on the same machine I'm now
> using to verify what I just said.
Yes. the gcc-4.5.2 tarball builds just fine on the same host using roughly the
same configuration options. I've added only --disa
On 25 October 2012 02:12, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> This also changes a previous statement I made: while I did build 4.5.2 on a
> different level of AIX, it was a 6.1 level and has the same LD_LIBRARY_PATH
> feature. Thus, something has changed in the build process of gcc to include
> LD_LIBRARY_P
On Oct 24, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> On Oct 24, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> On 24 October 2012 15:10, Perry Smith wrote:
>>> I thought I found a pilot error last night but it made no difference. I
>>> was calling "make" and not "make bootstrap".
>>
>> Just
On Oct 24, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 24 October 2012 15:10, Perry Smith wrote:
>> I thought I found a pilot error last night but it made no difference. I was
>> calling "make" and not "make bootstrap".
>
> Just "make" is correct, and has been for many years now.
Thanks.
On 24 October 2012 15:10, Perry Smith wrote:
> I thought I found a pilot error last night but it made no difference. I was
> calling "make" and not "make bootstrap".
Just "make" is correct, and has been for many years now.
I thought I found a pilot error last night but it made no difference. I was
calling "make" and not "make bootstrap".
Part of my current difficulty is I do "make bootstrap" (on a 100% clean
directory after configure) and it does as I reported before.
If I then just do "make bootstrap" a second
On 10/22/2012 06:03 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Perry Smith wrote:
>> In stage 3, libatomic's configure fails. The config.log file is here:
>> https://gist.github.com/3931504
>>
>> I've recreated the conftest.c and ran the same command. The output is fine
>> a
On Oct 22, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> On Oct 22, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>
>> On 10/22/2012 03:49 PM, Perry Smith wrote:
>>> In stage 3, libatomic's configure fails. The config.log file is here:
>>> https://gist.github.com/3931504
>>>
>>> I've recreated t
On Oct 22, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> On 10/22/2012 03:49 PM, Perry Smith wrote:
>> In stage 3, libatomic's configure fails. The config.log file is here:
>> https://gist.github.com/3931504
>>
>> I've recreated the conftest.c and ran the same command. The output is fine
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Perry Smith wrote:
> In stage 3, libatomic's configure fails. The config.log file is here:
> https://gist.github.com/3931504
>
> I've recreated the conftest.c and ran the same command. The output is fine
> and executes with a 0 status.
>
> The clue (that I can'
On 10/22/2012 03:49 PM, Perry Smith wrote:
> In stage 3, libatomic's configure fails. The config.log file is here:
> https://gist.github.com/3931504
>
> I've recreated the conftest.c and ran the same command. The output is fine
> and executes with a 0 status.
>
> The clue (that I can't figu
In stage 3, libatomic's configure fails. The config.log file is here:
https://gist.github.com/3931504
I've recreated the conftest.c and ran the same command. The output is fine and
executes with a 0 status.
The clue (that I can't figure out) is cc1 is a 32 bit program but it tried to
load th
David got me past my first problem.
AIX 6.1 TL07 SP03, gcc 4.5.2 git repository on "master". Last pull was
> commit 43780738cd22a2fbea5fd7d8260a76e0c3121f43
> Author: hubicka
> Date: Sat Oct 20 14:19:12 2012 +
Here is the new error:
> /gsa/ausgsa/projects/r/ruby/bin/bash /usr/work/src/g
Kai Ruottu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For which existing targets the prebuilt C libraries are missing? Or
> which are the
> targets which don't have any "suitable", "compatible" or something C library
> which could serve as that temporary bootstrap "target C library"
> during the GCC
> build?
Ian Lance Taylor wrote :
Kai Ruottu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ok, the traditional "evolutionary" method is to not reinvent the wheel
with the already tested target components but let then be as they are
and produce only the stuff required for the new $host, the GNU
binutils and the GCC s
Kai Ruottu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, the traditional "evolutionary" method is to not reinvent the wheel
> with the already tested target components but let then be as they are
> and produce only the stuff required for the new $host, the GNU
> binutils and the GCC sources. NOT the target
Hi Kai,
I agree that the things I wrote does not have much sense for people
that spent years in developing GCC, like you and most of the people
here are. I am very very very new in both using gcc and in its
internals. The first time when I was building cross platform gcc I
really did it from the
Ferad Zyulkyarov wrote :
To build a GCC corss compiler it would be good to use a specail tool
that is called "crosstool". You may look at the following links:
1. http://kegel.com/crosstool/
2. http://kegel.com/crosstool/current/doc/crosstool-howto.html
Everyone always building the target Linux
To build a GCC corss compiler it would be good to use a specail tool
that is called "crosstool". You may look at the following links:
1. http://kegel.com/crosstool/
2. http://kegel.com/crosstool/current/doc/crosstool-howto.html
On 2/9/07, Bhaskar Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Build binut
32 matches
Mail list logo
